9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 97X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on N/N. 25/2012-ST, dated 20.06.2012 as amended by N/N. 6/2015-ST, dated 01.03.2015 would not apply to the petitioner. HELD THAT:- Prima facie the petitioner has been in default in complying with the requirements of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994, in as much as the petitioner has failed to obtain service tax registration. The fact that the petitioner has been providing civil contract service indicate that the petitioner was indeed liable to pay service tax. The petitioner cannot blame the department as the petitioner had not given the correct particulars to the department for either issuance of the show cause notice or to the personal hearing notices thereafter or for communication of the impugned order. Prima facie the Court is of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and Two Hundred and thirty two only for the period from 01-04-2015 to 30-06-2017 under sub-section (2) of Section 73 of the Act; (ii) I confirm the demand of interest for the delayed payment of Service Tax from him at appropriate rates under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 inasmuch as the Service Tax was not paid on its due dates; (iii) I impose a penalty of Rs 8,09,232/- (Rupees Eight Lakh Nine Thousand Two Hundred and thirty two only on him under Section 78 of the Act; (iv) I impose a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) on him under Section 77(1)(a) of the Act for his failure to take the service tax registration; (v) I impose a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) on his under Section 77(2) of the Act for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the petitioner filed for the purpose of Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, on this count also, the demand sustained in the impugned order, dated 29.09.2022 is liable to be quashed. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the communication, dated 08.03.2024 of the Superintendent, North Range, Madurai i.e., 3rd respondent, wherein it is confirmed that the notices that preceded at the impugned order were not served on the petitioner. It is therefore submitted that there is a gross violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned order be set aside. 5. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. 6. Pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs are passed:- (i) The impugned Order in Original No.MAD-STASC- 143-2022 from file No.C.No.IV/09/27/2021 ST Adjn, dated 29.09.2022 confirming the demand in SCN.No.27/2021 ST, dated 20.10.2021 is quashed and the case is remitted back to the file of the 2nd respondent to pass fresh orders on merits and in accordance with law. (ii) The impugned Order in Original No.MAD-STASC- 143-2022 from file No.C.No.IV/09/27/2021 ST Adjn, dated 29.09.2022 shall be treated as addendum to SCN.No.27/2021 ST, dated 20.10.2021. (iii) The petitioner shall file a consolidated reply to SCN.No. 27/2021 ST, dated 20.10.2021 within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. (iv) The petitioner shall deposit 20% of the disputed tax to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
